Green Room

Deepest Horizon of Suspicion

posted at 5:02 pm on May 30, 2010 by

Would President Barack H. Obama be moving more swiftly to put the full weight of the federal emergency system behind stopping and cleaning up the Gulf oil spill — if the region affected comprised liberal Democratic states? Could the president of the United States be that cold-blooded and vindictive against one particular part of the country, a region he particularly detests because of long-past racism and current conservative leanings?

As usual with liberals, when we allow our thoughts to pull us where the evidence seems to lead, we sound paranoid; we back away, embarassed at even thinking such a thing. Who could imagine such a vicious plot… it must just be a curious concatenation of coincidence.

Liberals routinely rely upon that natural tendency, hatching conspiracies so bizarre and brazen that nobody would ever believe them, from attempts to nationalize much of the Amerian economy to wild orgies with White House interns in the Oval Office (rather, the little room just off the Oval Office). Even Republicans like Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt scoff at the “conspiratorial” ideas of “lunatics”:

  • That Obamunism might include deliberately wrecking our capitalist economy with unsustainable debt, just to pave the way for a liberal-fascist, public-private “partnership,” à la Venezuela or Japan;
  • That ultra-liberals might welcome a flood of illegals into the country, reasoning that once they’re mass-naturalized in a bona-fide amnesty (not like the legitimate path to citizenship proposed by George W. Bush and John McCain), they’ll vote reliably Democratic;
  • Or that the American Left actually wants to see America lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be repeatedly humiliated by Iran, Russia, and China, and to be driven away from our allies in South Korea, Europe, and of course Israel, all the better to “humble” us and drive us, out of desperation, towards supporting greater internationalism and the leftist dream of one-world government.

But at some point, we must ask the fundamental question: Can all the damage inflicted upon our country from the left side of the aisle, over the past century or more, be attributed to mere incompetence? Are the relentless heavy shoves all in the same direction just coincidence piled upon happenstance wrapped with synchronicity? Or at some deeper level, does the Left — and today, the people surrounding the president or even the Man himself — intend the consequences they consistently provoke?

I once spent an entire year keeping track of the number of times a restaurant bill was added incorrectly (this was in the days before all such bills were computerized). During that year, I received fourteen misadded checks; thirteen of them were mistaken in favor of the restaurant, only one in my favor.

It’s tempting (easier, less truculent, not as scary) to suggest that such improper arithmetic is just a silly error; but if so, then shouldn’t the error be in the customer’s favor roughly half the time? When the errors so overwhelmingly favor the restraurant, the “null hypothesis” is effectively disproven. At that point, the most reasonable conclusion is that the misadditions are deliberate, not random.

Similarly with the incessant “missteps” and “incomprehensible errors” and “foolish mistakes” in domestic and international policy from the most liberal (or leftist) administrations: When nearly all, virtually without exception, trend in the same direction — towards more government control at higher and higher levels of organization, cutting against individual liberty and local control — then it’s hard not to conclude that pattern matches the “Misadded Restauant Check” fallacy; and that the curiously coincidental errors are not such coincidences after all.

There are five American Gulf states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The first four voted against Barack Obama by a whopping average of 58-42; now Florida is clearly trending back Republican after its brief flirtation with radical “hope and change,” restoring the solid conservative, Republican South.

And this very day, Obama is enjoying another vacation, his second (!) since the BP spill began just 41 days ago. Yet he still hasn’t ordered the most obvious responses, from directing the Army “Corpse” of Engineers to help Louisiana build barrier sand berms, to using fire booms to burn off the oil, to sending in oil tankers to try to scoop up the 20.7 million to 32.7 million gallons of oil that have erupted into the Gulf so far (the Exxon Valdez spill was a paltry 10.8 million gallons), to at least considering using powerful explosives to plug the well. (At least the president, never shy of bragging about the wonders he’s going to perform, hasn’t even mentioned the possibility.)

Is Obama merely a fool, or is he willfully dragging his feet because the primary victims of the disaster are by and large anti-Obama Republicans? Is this his way of punishing them for their apostasy against the One We Were Supposed to Have Been Waiting For?

Democrats might not like the implications of that question, but I say it demands an answer.

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Mr. Dafydd Ab Hugh:

Your ultimate conclusion may be correct, but I would go more with the strategy of taking half-steps, quarter-steps; insisting everyone possible is being done as soon as possible; and reaping the “reward” of demonizing, Big Oil, fossil fuels, and everything that helps promote the green, climate change agenda.

ParisParamus on May 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

You’re definitely on to something here, and I’ve heard a few locals thinking along these lines. Lately when I’m out I tend to bring up the oil spill to ping people for reactions. We’re all weary of BP, of course – every new bit of information on what they knew and when they knew it adds to that. But there’s a lot of anger at Obama’s slow reaction and speculation on what’s behind it. Louisiana is a reasonably red state, but New Orleans is deep blue and he’s losing a LOT of traction. Take a look at the comments here to see what I mean.

Laura Curtis on May 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Oh, and this is priceless – local talk radio show and Obama voter Garland Robinette simply tore Obama up the other day. The transcript is not entirely accurate, so if you’ve got time, listen and don’t just read. He’s harsher than the text indicates. For example:

Mr. President, with all due respect, we have absolute proof that you are either misinformed or not being truthful, when you say we are your first priority…..or to quote you directly…”we will do whatever it takes.”

… The fact of the matter is…in this case, I don’t believe you. A smart, honest, caring man could not possibly ignore that we are being treated as a non-American state. A man who leads this country, because of the civil rights movement that forced equality for all…could not possibly stand by and let one state take all the risks for America’s security both militarily and financially and not act to rectify the situation.

I submit that I am not taking an admittedly complicated situation and over simplifying. It is perceived, sir, that you are simply using words, to reassure us long enough, for the next media frenzy to take the spotlight away. Just enough time for the lives of fishermen and their children to be destroyed. Killing us softly. Killing us softly. Perhaps not on purpose, but you have to know on some level, that if we were simply treated as the rest of the energy producing states…we could take care of ourselves.

Laura Curtis on May 30, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)would relish punishing anyone who doesn’t worship him. I suspect Obama, at the least, doesn’t care what happens to his preceived enemies, or he actually wants to see them punished. As I’ve said many times, people with NPD are dangerous. This may be a good example.

NNtrancer on May 30, 2010 at 6:32 PM

If you add Tennessee flooding to the mix, my Welsh-named friend, your hypothesis acquires another piece of evidence. I think, though, that there is a simpler explanation — if it doesn’t help him directly, he just isn’t interested. Or if his handlers don’t benefit (see the fruitless flight to Copenhagen on behalf of Chicago’s fortunately-aborted Olympic bid), he could care less.

either orr on May 30, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Even Republicans like Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt scoff at the “conspiratorial” ideas of “lunatics”:

* That Obamunism might include deliberately wrecking our capitalist economy with unsustainable debt, just to pave the way for a liberal-fascist, public-private “partnership,” à la Venezuela or Japan;
* That ultra-liberals might welcome a flood of illegals into the country, reasoning that once they’re mass-naturalized in a bona-fide amnesty (not like the legitimate path to citizenship proposed by George W. Bush and John McCain), they’ll vote reliably Democratic;
* Or that the American Left actually wants to see America lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be repeatedly humiliated by Iran, Russia, and China, and to be driven away from our allies in South Korea, Europe, and of course Israel, all the better to “humble” us and drive us, out of desperation, towards supporting greater internationalism and the leftist dream of one-world government.

Well I must be a “lunatic” in the Faux Republican eyes of Medved and Hewitt as I think there is much merit in the first two or those three, especially the second of the three which seems rather self-evident to me. The third of the three is much too helter skelter to take together.

On the matter of number three, I do however have a “bonus question”.

Who said the following? No “cheating” now.

We must get away from occupation warfare and nation building and execute precision strike operations aimed at denying the terrorist enemy sanctuary.

Tav on May 30, 2010 at 8:14 PM

It is becoming increasingly difficult to look at current events and not fall into the consiracy trap(if indeed it is a trap).Objectivity is the hallmark of the logical mind,but looking at the past seventy years or so from an economic prespective makes it diffficult to remain objective.

DDT on May 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Oops,perspective

DDT on May 30, 2010 at 8:16 PM

(not like the legitimate path to citizenship proposed by George W. Bush and John McCain

Oh btw, to use legitimate there is a real stretch.

Tav on May 30, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Yes … sigh

tarpon on May 31, 2010 at 7:31 AM

I know everyone here swoons over Doc Zero cuz he’s a man of deep feeling, but dang it daffydd, you knock it out of the park every time in my book with nothing except your world-class cerebral cortex. You are the king of the Green Room in my book.

The word Obamunism is a stroke of genius.

jeff_from_mpls on May 31, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Don’t underestimate the other factor here. BP is not an American oil company, so it’s top executives and its corporate structure is far less subject to manipulation than if the Deepwater Horizon blowout had been on a rig under contract to a domestic oil company.

If this had been an ExxonMobil rig, or a ChevronTexaco, Conoco-Phillips-Union 76 or Sunoco, the White House would have jumped on this from Day 1 and gone after the company and the oil industry in general with all the legal resources of the U.S. government, because of the power they have over companies incorporated in the U.S. But Obama and the Democrats didn’t see the immediate up-side to targeting a bunch of executives in London, so they let the problem fester because they couldn’t see an easy way to wield power over BP’s leadership.

jon1979 on May 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Don’t underestimate the other factor here. BP is not an American oil company, so it’s top executives and its corporate structure is far less subject to manipulation

True. Consider, also, that while thousands are being thrown out of work by Obama’s decision to not just tighten rules and conduct more safety inspections, but to completely shut down 33 rigs for at least the next 6 months, China, Russia, Cuba, and other countries continue to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Think they care much about safety/environmental or PR considerations?

Laura Curtis on May 31, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Other issues apply as well. Look at the border crisis with Mexico. TX and AZ were red in 2008, and make up about 3/4 of the total border. Not only are they being denied federal assistance, Obama&co actively protest any attempt by the individual states to protect themselves.

Then there is/was cap-and-trade. If you look at how the CO2 credits are divided up, you see that Southern and Rocky mtn. states are being forced to make cuts while states like CA, OR, and NY are given generous CO2 allowances.

bitsy on May 31, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Would President Barack H. Obama be moving more swiftly to put the full weight of the federal emergency system behind stopping and cleaning up the Gulf oil spill — if the region affected comprised liberal Democratic states?

If the region affected were comprised of liberal Democratic states, there would be no drilling in the first place. Kind of a non-sequitor.

percysunshine on May 31, 2010 at 3:07 PM